When searches are conducted by or with the aid of probation officers, “mere ‘pressure’” to not violate probation alone is insufficient to establish coercion. State v. Davis, 133 Or App 467, 475-76, 891 P2d 1373, rev den, 321 Or 429 (1995).

Defendant appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued her consent to a search was coerced when she was informed that the officer contacted her parole officer prior to requesting to search. When searches are conducted by or with the aid of probation officers, “mere ‘pressure’” to not violate probation alone is insufficient to establish coercion. State v. Davis, 133 Or App 467, 475-76, 891 P2d 1373, rev den, 321 Or 429 (1995). The Court of Appeals held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search because the surrounding circumstances of the interaction coupled with the officer’s comments do not rise to the level of coercion. Affirmed.